David R sent me this link recently:
http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3177

In it, he discusses Dworkin's "semantic sting" and the discussion on the thread turns to why RPG theory is so bloody useless. David R asked me in a PM to comment on it, and per JimBob's Forum Addict bandwagon, I told him I'd make a post about it.

I think contemporary RPG theory (GNS, the Big Model, etc.) is broken. But not only do I think the theory is broken, I think the discussion about the theory is broken. The criticisms are two-fold, "RPG theory is gibberish semantically" and "RPG theorists say bad things about people without warrant." While I agree that both are true criticisms, they don't seem to have any "bite". How many people have been convinced to stop doing RPG theory because of these arguments? It doesn't seem like many. They might disavow a specific statement, but they still operate within the same space of thought.

Similarly, contemporary RPG theory doesn't have any really good arguments to offer about why we should adopt it. The argument "It produces good games" has no "heft" behind it because no one can form a consensus on which games are good, or why, even if the group attempting to form the consensus is composed only of RPG theorists (see Ron Edwards' recent performance as Cronus for an example of this lack of consensus). It also doesn't seem to do a very good job describing the way we actually play.

We seem to be at an impasse here. Neither one is able to make the other side feel the force of their reasons as it stands, leaving nothing to do but hurl childish insults. Maybe it's the years of philosophy, but that leaves me displeased.

What we need to do is not find nastier niche-appropriate ways of calling the other guys "nigger" or "fag" or whatever ("Swine" here and now, I guess) but rather to convert them all to our point of view.

I don't have a simple three-step plan or anything for doing this. I have at best tentative suggestions, and I want a bit of time to sit and stew on them before I propose anything.

In the mean time, I put it to the site: What means and arguments would you use to convert contemporary RPG theorists to your point of view?

I think RPG theory is a completely worthless endeavour that spends a lot of time and effort on something that has zero consequence.

It's about as useful as those mail order courses that claim they can teach you how to be a good writer.  

The only sure way to being a good RPG writer is the same sure way to be any kind of writer:  talent, experience, reading, and shit tons of practice.  

I need only point to the existence of countless great games release in the past 30 years completely without the aid of any "theory", or to the decade I've played RPGs without ever having any kind of "theory" enter into my play even once.  

So my means will continue to be to play and write RPGs the way everyone has for decades now, and simple time will prove the utter irrelevance of the Forge and "RPG theory".

Quote from: PseudoephedrineSimilarly, contemporary RPG theory doesn't have any really good arguments to offer about why we should adopt it. The argument "It produces good games" has no "heft" behind it because no one can form a consensus on which games are good, or why[...]

Well, the idea goes something like this: rpg theory is not about making games perfect, rpg theory is about giving you language to understand what will make the game perfect for you. In this view, rpg theory is not a roadmap, but a compass. The different categories of Gamism, Dramatism, etc are ways of marking north, south, east and west on the compass of gaming.

I remember seeing a lot of people with maps and compasses trying to navigate, and getting lost. Often it was because they spent so much time and effort looking at their maps and compasses that they didn't look enough at the ground around them. This was called "map to ground skills". For example, being able to say, "well, we think we are here on the map, we are facing north, to the east is a hill. So if we are where we think we are, there should be a hill to our right. Actually it's to our left." Because the map is on paper and all colourful and well-made and with an official government stamp on it, some people have a tendency to trust the map before they trust their own eyes. So they get lost.

I think it's the same with rpg theory. Ideally, it'll label the directions of the compass for us, to help us in our journey to where we want to go. But some people get fixated on the map and the compass, and begin to ignore the reality around them, and get lost. They've confused the compass and map with reality, rather than just a guide to reality. Some people focus on the rpg theory, and ignore the game group around them, and so get nowhere. They've confused the theory with the practice, rather than understanding the rpg theory as a guide to the reality.

QuoteWhat means and arguments would you use to convert contemporary RPG theorists to your point of view?

For starters, they need to be players in campaigns led by decent DMs.

I don't really give a fuck about "converting" RPG Theorists. I don't want them to come over to my side; I just want them gone.

If some of them should, by some miracle, get convinced that their ways are erroneous and come around to mainstream gaming, well... goodie.
But frankly, I think most of the RPG Theorists are doing what they do because they like doing it, not because they're "fooling themselves" or something like that. It just so happens that what they really like doing is a whole different hobby that is trying to act as a parasite on our own hobby, that will never comfortably co-exist with the parts of the hobby that I love most, and thus my only interest is to destroy the RPG Theorists' ability to dominate the environment, fool others into thinking them benevolent or positive for the hobby, or be able to influence anyone.

And for that goal, my own tactics are certainly very good ones.

RPGPundit

See, Pseud? We can't even talk reasonably about talking reasonably about RPG theory.

Well, we can - those two can't.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIn the mean time, I put it to the site: What means and arguments would you use to convert contemporary RPG theorists to your point of view?

Convert. I think you may have to do a little bit more explaining for this word to have any "bite"

I do think that one of the problems with theory is that theory= indie games or design - if you get my meaning.

And of course the jargon, which to me seems like the made up language kids sometimes use with each other...sure they may be able to communicate and get their ideas across but really it's just gibberish with words defined with no  basis in reality.

Also droog has a point. I'm hoping he is wrong but...

Edit: I think the most productive thing to do is to bring back theory and those who are interested in discussing it into the fold of "mainstream" gaming/gamers

Regards,
David R

This has a long preamble, but I am trying to answer Pseudoephedrine's question:

It's interesting that Kyle says "compass".

Back, when this game-theory nonsense all started, people used the RPG Theory analogy of the compass all the time. And it made sense. You could readily see people who were more or less prioritizing things like "the game elements", "accurate simulation" and "the story".

I remember a quote that is now almost a decade old but it was by Mytholder (Gareth Hanrahan) and it said something like "It showed me that despite what games we were playing, I was able to understand and embrace both the vampire player and the D&D player as my brothers".

I got the quote totally wrong, but that was the gist.

And it made sense then to think of it that way, because anyone could see people doing this. As a compass it showed us where the similarities were and how they could be respected and synthesized and how everyone could find common ground.

Anyhow, the point here is, it used to be a unifying theory, a theory about understanding what people want. This is how the Robin Laws one works as well. The one pursued by the forgies was necessarily a divisive theory that was meant to drive customers to playing sorcerer. It said "this is the only way that matters. If you can't find someone doing it this way, you must quit playing." It taught people to be intolerant of the way anyone else played.

Oh, and it's important to point out, that the forgies HATE HATE HATE the Robin laws theory. For one thing, it totally doesn't tell you which one is "the best".


Well, anyhow, all of that unifying crap was thrown out pretty soon after Ron started his movement in earnest and left the Gaming Outpost to form Hephaustus' Forge with GO's Ed Healy (who disappeared soon afterwards, but was the real talent in the website business). He redefined story and redfined everything else, and pretty soon "story" was defined as only "that which addresses a moral question" (which he called "premise", but which doesn't fucking mean premise in any case). But Ron's game *did* do that, and he wanted to tap into the rollplay vs roleplay meme and profit from it. And so he did.

But the main thing to understand is: These guys aren't creating stories now, and they weren't creating them then either. They were - at best- simulating them. It was all marketing talk to sell Ron's game, and Ron suddenly had a built in audience of consumers who were sold on the idea that if they wanted to understand game design and sell their game.. they'd have to buy into Sorcerer first.

And that right there was the death of honesty and the death of RPG Theory for good. So I think this may actually be a futile project.

I think Edwards is finished right now. Not even his followers are really his followers anymore (outside of a few die hards who will assure you that "Sorcerer is still selling well"), and his latest work is going nowhere.

In the meantime, we've seen plenty of nastiness and outright lies.

I think one of the absolute worst elements of RPGnet (the people who are obsessed with how cool they seem based on whether they are playing the "right game") was eventually converted and absorbed into the forgie machine. Thats who we seem to be battling now.

...And the sneaky marketing schemes sure got to be pretty fucking ridiculous after a while.

...And then you have your talentless gaming snobs who seem to obsess on the games they don't actually play, but always have to make a statement on them. "Owlbears are stupid". hoho. yeah, that's clever.

I would bet you that some-- perhaps even most of the actual game designers are embarassed by this shit. But they can't disavow it, because these are their biggest supporters.

So my demands are simple self-assessment, and if it turns out that your'e in this hobby because you want to be a fiction writer or a performance artiste or a community theater reject* or whatever, then you gracefully bow the fuck out and pursue that. Short of that, I'd say that if they don't want to come into conflict with us, then they make an effort not to come into conflict with us.

That is to say, avoid us, our conventions, and our communities. I don't need to convert anyone.



* Other possible careers are available on demand. "Ex-mormon guru", "leather mug salesman at a RenFair", "Food processer demonstrator"..  I'm like a career counselor for forgies!

Quote from: PseudoephedrineWe seem to be at an impasse here. Neither one is able to make the other side feel the force of their reasons as it stands, leaving nothing to do but hurl childish insults. Maybe it's the years of philosophy, but that leaves me displeased.

What we need to do is not find nastier niche-appropriate ways of calling the other guys "nigger" or "fag" or whatever ("Swine" here and now, I guess) but rather to convert them all to our point of view.

Is there no room here for people to disagree without it being a problem?

'cuz this whole attitude of "Conversion or the Sword" seems a little wonky to me.  How 'bout we all solve the problem by saying "People can believe things I don't agree with, but we can still be part of the same community, and have meaningful and productive conversations"?

To understand the dialog, you have to understand that a lot of RPG Theory is *intentionally* insulting to traditional games and gamers.

The theorists are walking in with a belief that their preferences make them superior to the sheeple playing popular games.

It's going to be tough to talk reasonably while one side has a bunch of weird, insulting prejudices about the other side.

It's built into any dialog that starts with the Forge theory and the brain damage (note that the individual theorist might renounce the brain damage; it's so built into the terms that apologism doesn't matter)

I also think all that "role-vs-roll play" crap is very attractive to many theorists. For others, being able to claim that their traumatic, on-going power struggle wasn't their responsibility (and so blaming the game) is important.

Both of these perspectives actually get *validated* by the inevitable chilly reception ("I must be right about playing better -- see look! Those traditional gamers are scared of my indie mojo! They hate us because we're better!")

If you want to see non-explosive reasonable theory it's not hard to find: find a body of theory that doesn't start with dysfunction and damage (I don't want to embarrass the authors -- PM me if you'd like some links).

It's out there; it just tends to fall off the front page.

Succinctly: the theory dialog is volatile because that's the way the theorists want it. Where they don't, they drop the insulting stuff and go pleasantly on their way.

Cheers,
-E.

I wouldn't try to convert anyone to my point of view, more or less ever. Largely because I eschew firmly held opinions to the best of my ability... at least until I can be sure of something, at which point it ceases to be an opinion.

I'll say how I feel on a given thing on a case by case basis, and in retrospect this has left me not a hypocrite to the extent that my tastes haven't changed.

As for converting people, it's wasted effort unless I intend to game with that person. In that case, the best argument is a fun game.

What I really want out of theory, and what I really would like to contribute once I'm experienced enough to be able is not what is called theory now. I don't want a new language. I don't want a compass. I want a toolkit. I want to know how to write an adventure and circumvent railroad mentality. I want that perfect set of rules... not the perfect pre-existing combination, but a kind of catalogue of what's out there that I can use. I want advice on setting and writing and publishing and finding good illustrators. From a GM's perspective, I need tips and tricks. I can run combat for 12 people in the crunchiest of combat systems; now what makes an NPC memorable, and what makes a good adventure hook?

Endless cataloguing is useless. I have all the terms I need. Opinions I can form on my own if I decide at some point that I want to. What I need is practical advice.

So if and when I have a "theory," I see no need to convert anyone. If I share it, I will simply put it out there. Others will use it or not, on its merit or their opinions.

Quote from: TonyLBIs there no room here for people to disagree without it being a problem?

'cuz this whole attitude of "Conversion or the Sword" seems a little wonky to me.  How 'bout we all solve the problem by saying "People can believe things I don't agree with, but we can still be part of the same community, and have meaningful and productive conversations"?

Even disagreement has to happen within a common context of justification - one has to give reasons for one's position that are accepted by the other side, and point to relevant distinctions in the circumstances that allow the existence of these two beliefs to be reconciled with one another.

To avoid doing this, to say "Well, that's your taste, and that's mine, and nary the twain shall meet and let's not talk about why" is to duck one of the most important parts of being a rational person.

Quote from: David RConvert. I think you may have to do a little bit more explaining for this word to have any "bite"

I mean "To reconcile their beliefs with yours within a mutually-accepted discourse of justification". That's a technical but fair definition of "convert", I think.

QuoteEdit: I think the most productive thing to do is to bring back theory and those who are interested in discussing it into the fold of "mainstream" gaming/gamers

So do I. I'm looking for how we do that.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineEven disagreement has to happen within a common context of justification - one has to give reasons for one's position that are accepted by the other side, and point to relevant distinctions in the circumstances that allow the existence of these two beliefs to be reconciled with one another.

Why?  Are we Marxists?  Must everything be thesis/antithesis/synthesis?

I agree that a person should be able to articulate the reasons for their position.  But if someone else says "I have heard and understood your reasons, but they are not compelling to me," I think that's a fine position to hold ... one which should (in principle) be satisfying to both people talking.

Not every argument has to end with both people believing the same thing.  To clearly communicate, and yet not convince, is still a win for both sides.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineTo avoid doing this, to say "Well, that's your taste, and that's mine, and nary the twain shall meet and let's not talk about why" is to duck one of the most important parts of being a rational person.

You're saying something a bit more extreme than I am.  I'm not saying "Ah, I throw up my hands!  We'll clearly never have any common ground, and it's not worth trying!"  I'm saying "Oh, okay.  You've heard my reasons, I've heard yours, and now if anyone is going to change their opinion it's going to be the result of them thinking about things, rather than of either of us continuing to hammer on our position."

You can call it the end of rationality.  I call it the beginning of wisdom.  But hey, it's a matter upon which rational people could reasonably disagree

Quote from: TonyLBI agree that a person should be able to articulate the reasons for their position.  But if someone else says "I have heard and understood your reasons, but they are not compelling to me," I think that's a fine position to hold ... one which should (in principle) be satisfying to both people talking.

Not every argument has to end with both people believing the same thing.  To clearly communicate, and yet not convince, is still a win for both sides.

We should strive to understand not only _that_ the reasons are not compelling, but _why_ they are not compelling.

QuoteYou're saying something a bit more extreme than I am.  I'm not saying "Ah, I throw up my hands!  We'll clearly never have any common ground, and it's not worth trying!"  I'm saying "Oh, okay.  You've heard my reasons, I've heard yours, and now if anyone is going to change their opinion it's going to be the result of them thinking about things, rather than of either of us continuing to hammer on our position."

This is a strawman. The point is not to "hammer on our position" but to provide compelling reasons which cause the other person to come into a consensus with us. That doesn't mean constant chatter, but what you're recommending here basically boils down to a kind of faith that others will agree with you on their own if you don't attempt to convince and persuade them. That may happen from time to time, but it's far more common (and better founded) to give reasons to other people.

QuoteYou can call it the end of rationality.  I call it the beginning of wisdom.  But hey, it's a matter upon which rational people could reasonably disagree

It's not wisdom. It's an ideological position. The idea that tastes are private, innate, ineffable and purely subjective is not by any means an account of the natural state of affairs in the world.